Tebow and the triple option

[Timbathia]

Originally Posted by Denver Bronco27

This is what people were saying when we played the jets and Rex Ryan... I think with teams built to stop the pass have a HARD TIME defending against a team that runs the ball 45+ times a game

Hang on, what? The jets defense were all over us. The Broncos offense put up 10points. Mcgahee Had 18 yards on 12 carries. The other RBs had 30 yards on 13 carries. Tebow threw for 100 yards. The only time the offense wasnt completly and utterly smashed by the jets defense was the last drive, where tebow ran and passed well. It even required an utterly unexplainable decision by Ryan to throw the house at Tebow and give him an opportunity to run in that last TD.

Lets make no mistake, the Broncos offense is barely productive against weak defenses, and it is utter garbage against good ones.

[nobodyinparticular]

Originally Posted by jsagan77

No one has to say it, it's simply implied that he gets a pass because he's a rookie on a crap team. You always give rookie QB's time to develop.. Want some examples? See Drew Brees, Peyton Manning, tons of others that I don't feel like mentioning...

The hell it's implied! No one thinks Gabbert is on a Peyton Manning career arc--even a Byron Leftwich career arc. The dude effing sucks! Where the **** does Gabbert come in to the conversation about Tim Tebow. You didn't even make a strawman fallacy because it hasn't even been remotely mentioned in regards to Gabbert as a better QB.

And Drew Brees WAS a bust for three years with SD. SD was the bottom of the barrel and Brees was the epitome of the doldrums SF had reached. You don't draft a QB #4 overall if you are giving your current QB a pass.

But this is beside the point. When Peyton Manning played as a rookie, he ACTUALLY looked good. He had good mechanics. And he had the drive to make it work. Tim Tebow looks like ****.

So that's why people are calling him a ****** QB. Because he IS a ****** QB.

[Raiderz4Life]

Originally Posted by Timbathia

Hang on, what? The jets defense were all over us. The Broncos offense put up 10points. Mcgahee Had 18 yards on 12 carries. The other RBs had 30 yards on 13 carries. Tebow threw for 100 yards. The only time the offense wasnt completly and utterly smashed by the jets defense was the last drive, where tebow ran and passed well. It even required an utterly unexplainable decision by Ryan to throw the house at Tebow and give him an opportunity to run in that last TD.

Lets make no mistake, the Broncos offense is barely productive against weak defenses, and it is utter garbage against good ones.

THANK YOU!!

This is really all it boils down to.

[Ness]

Originally Posted by jsagan77

I agree on Gabbert, but you call a spade a spade, not send them into another category because of a subjective view. Gabbert was a top 10 pick, he's a rookie, he's under performing, and losing despite a top 5 D and a top RB.

You do realize that Tebow has 5 game winning drives right? That's not the defense... I agree that the Defense is keeping them in games, but how can you say they are "winning" games for them?

And Vince Young had a six game winning streak in 2006. Didn't make him a good quarterback. That is what this boils down to.

The defense is winning games for the Broncos because they allowing what happened to the Lions happen with any other opponent. If this happens again, if the run game doesn't work out, can Tebow pass the ball to bring his team back?

[Ness]

Originally Posted by Zycho32

Taking the comments one by one;

The concerns about QBs being abused and having to be specifically drafted to run the Option is a key concern. It goes back to finding the right pieces for a Non-Conventional offense to work. And in this case, it takes a very special talent to make such an offense work at the Professional level due to the raised bar in athletic ability and skillsets. Most just think that in this case, it means he has one or two too many weaknesses to run the standard offense. But be fair for a moment; how fundamentally different is the Option from a Pro-Style Offense these days? I can see the argument about a Prehistoric Option formation, back before the Ancient T saw the light of day. But innovation can breathe life into even the Option and make it capable of an all-around attack on defenses.

For instance, Denver's current Offense either is or is very close to the Spread Option. This would actually be more devastating if Tebow were more accurate because it still utilizes pass-heavy packages and multiple downfield targets, allowing for a long strike capacity even during those 3rd and Longs and twenty-plus point deficits you've mentioned.

As for recievers, you're definitely not going to get the superstars in Free Agency or the like, and divas are out of the question. But so what? Go through the draft and look for no-nonsense blue collar types who can make plays and if necessary replenish the recieving corps every couple of years if they leave.

And in all Fairness, not only would there be much less talk of Tebow being unconventional if the D still played like crap, but you can bet there would be far far less dissing of the whole process. Tebow would probably be evaluated more as a work in progress than as a savior and be judged more fairly as a result.

Vince Young's an interesting case to be sure, but not in the way you expect. That whole situation brought up the perception that you have to apparently throw for 3000+ yards and over two dozen Touchdowns before you can be deemed a good QB, or have an effect on a Football Game that wasn't negative. 'Oh he didn't throw for 300 yards? Just 160? Only one TD? Replace this clown!'. Or, at least that would be coming from the uneducated.

Why not just do what the league has shown to be successful instead of trying to reinvent the wheel? Especially in this day and age? Will fans and ownership really be patient for a new style of offense that doesn't seem like it would work based on some of the details I outlined? That make take years to evolve? Is the Tebow investment really worth it when we've seen that it could just be a fluke? (Vince Young in 2006). I mean good luck converting third and longs, and good luck scoring a good amount of points when your defense and run game fail you.

And searching the draft for "blue collar" receivers isn't enough. You need talent at that position to succeed on offense plain and simple. There was another Broncos fan in here just complaining about the amount of drops from the receivers on the Denver offense (which was just an attempt to deflect blame from Tebow's horrible accuracy but that's another story). It doesn't even have anything to do with diva receivers. Money comes into play here in contracts with incentives. Receivers are all about getting the ball and their money these days. Receivers won't want to come to Denver unless they are having trouble finding work (over the hill veterans) or you draft them (inexperienced rookies).

[Zycho32]

Originally Posted by Ness

Why not just do what the league has shown to be successful instead of trying to reinvent the wheel? Especially in this day and age? Will fans and ownership really be patient for a new style of offense that doesn't seem like it would work based on some of the details I outlined? That make take years to evolve? Is the Tebow investment really worth it when we've seen that it could just be a fluke? (Vince Young in 2006). I mean good luck converting third and longs, and good luck scoring a good amount of points when your defense and run game fail you.

Probably because Tebow- oddly enough like Michael Vick before him- carries the sort of publicity that will still put butts in seats and media attention on an otherwise marginally talented squad. Take Tebow out of the equation, then Denver becomes another rebuilding bottom feeder. And unfortunately his weaknesses make the Conventional styles impossible to execute on the field. So, you ultimately have two choices;

1. Dump him, go into rebuilding mode, take a hit on paid attendance and media focus. (The Attendance factor being key here, as $ seems to be as important as winning 'Especially in this day and age')

2. Keep him, use him, spend every dang moment between games- and in the ensuing off-season- working with his play reading and arm mechanics. And in the process get a healthy surge of attention and cash from paying customers as well as a ton of speculation up to next year about how much further the team can go.

And searching the draft for "blue collar" receivers isn't enough. You need talent at that position to succeed on offense plain and simple. There was another Broncos fan in here just complaining about the amount of drops from the receivers on the Denver offense (which was just an attempt to deflect blame from Tebow's horrible accuracy but that's another story). It doesn't even have anything to do with diva receivers. Money comes into play here in contracts with incentives. Receivers are all about getting the ball and their money these days. Receivers won't want to come to Denver unless they are having trouble finding work (over the hill veterans) or you draft them (inexperienced rookies).

I had no idea 'Blue Collar' meant 'Total Scrub'. Is that what it means to you?

Do you think buying Elite talent at WR in Free Agency is really the way to go even if you ditch Tebow and go conventional? Those same guys wouldn't come to Denver anyway because the team would simply blow. Maybe if you tossed them Top Dollar figures to begin with, but that's just as likely to cripple the team. No matter what you'd be going with rookies and cheap vets who either are going down in their careers or are simply on the fringe.

So drafting a potential Blue Chipper at WR is the best bet for an immediate air talent, and this is where 'Blue Collar' comes in. That sort of intangible is supposed to mean the guy comes to work whether the dang ball is getting to him or not. It's supposed to mean he's at least willing to take on defenders in blocking situations, and hit the playbooks. He may not stay beyond his rookie contract, but he'll do the job until the contract ends.

[Ness]

Originally Posted by Zycho32

Probably because Tebow- oddly enough like Michael Vick before him- carries the sort of publicity that will still put butts in seats and media attention on an otherwise marginally talented squad. Take Tebow out of the equation, then Denver becomes another rebuilding bottom feeder. And unfortunately his weaknesses make the Conventional styles impossible to execute on the field. So, you ultimately have two choices;

1. Dump him, go into rebuilding mode, take a hit on paid attendance and media focus. (The Attendance factor being key here, as $ seems to be as important as winning 'Especially in this day and age')

2. Keep him, use him, spend every dang moment between games- and in the ensuing off-season- working with his play reading and arm mechanics. And in the process get a healthy surge of attention and cash from paying customers as well as a ton of speculation up to next year about how much further the team can go.

If you build a team that is designed to win year in and year out (Steelers, Patriots, Ravens, etc.) you'll put fans in the seats. You don't need a single player with a gimmick to draw fan attendance. A team that wins will do that for you regardless. The money will come with a team that is designed for success. And if Tebow and the Broncos don't win, fans will turn on him like they did Vince Young and any other player. Losing grows thin. Hopefully if they do decide to stick with Tebow and this unconventional offense they are in the playoffs year after year. Because if they aren't, Tebow is going to bare the brunt of the blame when the team loses. Except for the apologists that will defend Tebow no matter what happens.

Tebow is supposed to have all of those mechanic issues worked out before you get to the NFL. Now you are in a situation that due to a few fluke wins and national media attention could cloud the organization's judgement and pass one someone that could really help them out at the quarterback position in the NFL draft.

And you don't think the Broncos are in rebuilding mode? Being second in the AFC West isn't that huge of an accomplishment. Come on now.


I had no idea 'Blue Collar' meant 'Total Scrub'. Is that what it means to you?

Originally Posted by Zycho32

Do you think buying Elite talent at WR in Free Agency is really the way to go even if you ditch Tebow and go conventional? Those same guys wouldn't come to Denver anyway because the team would simply blow. Maybe if you tossed them Top Dollar figures to begin with, but that's just as likely to cripple the team. No matter what you'd be going with rookies and cheap vets who either are going down in their careers or are simply on the fringe.

So drafting a potential Blue Chipper at WR is the best bet for an immediate air talent, and this is where 'Blue Collar' comes in. That sort of intangible is supposed to mean the guy comes to work whether the dang ball is getting to him or not. It's supposed to mean he's at least willing to take on defenders in blocking situations, and hit the playbooks. He may not stay beyond his rookie contract, but he'll do the job until the contract ends.

You need playmakers at the receiver position. That's my point. Whether it's through the draft or in free agency. You can't get by with the guys that Denver is using now. And it's going to be difficult to find guys that want to come to Denver and just do dirty work (a lot of run blocking and not catching passes) unless they're guys designed to do just that. And when the team gets down because the run is shut down and you need to pass, it will be be obvious that you need more than guys that are just adequate receivers.

[jsagan77]

OMG it's like you have to force feed logic....

No **** no one thinks that Gabbert is on a Peyton Manning career arc.. The point is that Manning was pretty bad as a rookie and no one gave up on him because you just don't do that. Brees wasn't a bust because he was a 2nd round pick who the Chargers knew would need grooming and time to grow.. That worked out. Ponder will get the same respect, as will Bradford, and so should Tebow...

And you don't think Tebow has drive? LMAO....

Originally Posted by nobodyinparticular

The hell it's implied! No one thinks Gabbert is on a Peyton Manning career arc--even a Byron Leftwich career arc. The dude effing sucks! Where the **** does Gabbert come in to the conversation about Tim Tebow. You didn't even make a strawman fallacy because it hasn't even been remotely mentioned in regards to Gabbert as a better QB.

And Drew Brees WAS a bust for three years with SD. SD was the bottom of the barrel and Brees was the epitome of the doldrums SF had reached. You don't draft a QB #4 overall if you are giving your current QB a pass.

But this is beside the point. When Peyton Manning played as a rookie, he ACTUALLY looked good. He had good mechanics. And he had the drive to make it work. Tim Tebow looks like ****.

So that's why people are calling him a ****** QB. Because he IS a ****** QB.

[jsagan77]

Originally Posted by Ness

And Vince Young had a six game winning streak in 2006. Didn't make him a good quarterback. That is what this boils down to.

The defense is winning games for the Broncos because they allowing what happened to the Lions happen with any other opponent. If this happens again, if the run game doesn't work out, can Tebow pass the ball to bring his team back?

No one is arguing that Tim Tebow is a good freaking QB, I am arguing that he elevates his team. Vince Young's record as a starter was 31:18. Would you rather have that or the record of a Matt Schaub who's obviously the better passer but 32:34 as a starter? It all comes down to who's going to win games for you and if that's Young or Tebow putting up mediocre pass numbers and descent run stats with a descent run game and D then what's the big deal?

[Ness]

Originally Posted by jsagan77

No one is arguing that Tim Tebow is a good freaking QB, I am arguing that he elevates his team. Vince Young's record as a starter was 31:18. Would you rather have that or the record of a Matt Schaub who's obviously the better passer but 32:34 as a starter? It all comes down to who's going to win games for you and if that's Young or Tebow putting up mediocre pass numbers and descent run stats with a descent run game and D then what's the big deal?

Anyone can elevate their team by playing the rah rah card. It really comes down to having talented players and being able to execute X's and O's and scheme logically. Tim Tebow didn't magically make Von Miller play better with his positive attitude. Von Miller was already a talented player to begin with. He didn't change Champ Bailey's coverage skills. Everyone is giving the same praise to Tebow that Vince Young received when his team stepped up it's defensively play. Yes Vince Young has a nice win-loss record. Where is he and how is he doing now? Football is a team sport, which is why you can't take a win-loss record for any quarterback at face value. There is a reason why Vince Young is second string on the Eagles and playing terrible. During his days with the Titans it was the defense and Chris Johnson carrying that football team, not Vince.

And the comparison to Schaub is ridiculous. Schaub and that offense has been the one constant for the Texans since he's practically been there. Houston FINALLY acquired a defense that can stop folks this season and make plays. Again, football is a team sport. Matt Schaub was never the problem for the Texans.

The big deal is that it can't be sustained. That is what everyone is harping about when they crack down on Tebow and the Denver offense compared to most people who are just living in the moment and thinking this is actually sustainable. That's why Vince is on the bench and guys like Schaub are still starters. Because they can pass the football accurately from the pocket. Tebow will probably suffer a similar fate to Young if he doesn't become a better passer. What he's doing now in this offense though will not work long term.

[FUNBUNCHER]

One thing I can say about Tebow, he elevates the emotional volume of a football team. We aren't dealing in abstracts here. At its most basic, football is played on its highest level from pee wee to the NFL with an incredible level of emotion and desire.

The biggest, fastest and most skilled players are losing football games every Friday, Saturday and Sunday across this country because of a lack of discipline, intelligence and genuine passion for the game.

What's the reason that Vernon Gholston was really a bust??
Why is Aaron Maybin making plays for the NY Jets??

I remember reading an article in The Sporting News about Junior Seau before he was drafted in 1990 by the Chargers, and this line has always stuck out to me overthe years; "Junior Seau plays the game of football with an intensity that borders on fear, as of something bad will happen to him otherwise."

Yes, a player must first be good/skilled to earn the respect of his teammates. But after that it's the guys who bring it every single play and out-effort the guy in front of them who get others to play at their level.

What's the most positive thing you can say about an NFL prospect other than Player X runs a 4.2???
Player X has a 'non-stop motor'.

Emotion/passion/intensity/desire. However you want to define it, some players bring this to the table every game and some don't.
Your QB doesn't always need to bring this to the table vocally, but his play should demonstrate what's going in inside his heart.

Sometimes that means throwing a perfect 25 yard strike between a safety and cornerback on 3rd and 8 just as a 260# LB is about to bury his helmet into the small of your back.
Sometimes it means rolling out of the pocket, tucking the football and running over a safety to get to the first down marker.

The Broncos could do worse than Tebow.

I still believe he can improve as a passer because his history shows it, and I'm sorry but a 6'3, 245# Jesus freak QB who benches almost 500# and squats nearly 600# CAN run the ball 15-20 times a game and survive in the NFL.

[J-Mike88]

Originally Posted by Ness

Anyone can elevate their team by playing the rah rah card.

Definitely not true.

[Ness]

Originally Posted by J-Mike88

Definitely not true.

Great counterargument.

[Raiderz4Life]

Originally Posted by jsagan77

OMG it's like you have to force feed logic....

No **** no one thinks that Gabbert is on a Peyton Manning career arc.. The point is that Manning was pretty bad as a rookie and no one gave up on him because you just don't do that. Brees wasn't a bust because he was a 2nd round pick who the Chargers knew would need grooming and time to grow.. That worked out. Ponder will get the same respect, as will Bradford, and so should Tebow...

And you don't think Tebow has drive? LMAO....

LOL That's funny

Peyton Manning didn't look like absolute dog **** even in his rookie year. He showed a great amount of promise. Brees was a total bust his first years...he didn't do a gtdamn thing with San Diego...there's a reason they have Philip Rivers now and not Brees, he didn't do anything until his contract year, Ponder and Bradford, Newton, Dalton, have all shown they can be a QB at the NFL level, they show flashes of being good...Gabbert and Tebow...don't even flicker of being good NFL QBs. Tebow shines like hell as a good RB/H-back though.

[nobodyinparticular]

I'm done with this conversation. I did a very good job ignoring the fan boys for a while. Now I'm done.

The only thing worse than a thread full of skilled trolls is a group of unskilled, starry-eyed homers.

[Denver Bronco56]

No matter what anyone says in this thread we all have our preconceived judgements.


I think Tebow can get better as a passer, and posses a real threat with his size/speed/strength. Is he ever going to be a Peyton or Tom brady type passer? NO.... But is there more than one way to get the job done? YES


To me alot of the criticism is based on him as a person whether people will admit it or not. Some one that is supposedly as bad a tebow and passing SHOULD not be one of the most efficient in NCAA history at passing.

I also have a hard time thinking that he can't throw the ball after going back and watching his RECORD SETTING sugar bowl. 31-34 for 482 yards and NO INTS.... a guy that couldnt hit the broad side of the barn on ANY level doesnt throw like that and get his numbers.

He CAN THROW, i think he needs to learn to read defenses and that can be taught, thrown in with how he doesnt like to throw picks he has all the makings of a dangerous QB that just needs to develop.... It blows my mind that in his 9 games as a starter he is expected to already be playing at a HOF level..... he is 24 years old. Aaron Rodgers had time to develop, i think tebow needs time also

[Raiderz4Life]

He played in a gimmick offense...how many ppl have been "efficient" passers in the NCAA and failed in the NFL?

Look at Colt McCoy and Kellen Moore, 2 of the most "efficient" passers in the NCAA and one sucks and the other one will be luck to get drafted.

[Denver Bronco56]

Originally Posted by raiderz4life

He played in a gimmick offense...how many ppl have been "efficient" passers in the NCAA and failed in the NFL?

Look at Colt McCoy and Kellen Moore, 2 of the most "efficient" passers in the NCAA and one sucks and the other one will be luck to get drafted.

We can argue why people fail in the NFL... but being able to throw a ball to point b is a skill that i dont think you lose, what changes is reading defenses and the speed of the game... but Tebow can throw the ball, he just needs to develop.

[Raiderz4Life]

I'm going to say this one last time....

He throws a horrible ball, most of the time its WAY OFF....nowhere near being catchable.

[Denver Bronco56]

Originally Posted by raiderz4life

I'm going to say this one last time....

He throws a horrible ball, most of the time its WAY OFF....nowhere near being catchable.

I will give you sometime... but he also right after will throw a 30 yard dart.... He comes of as someone that is a rhythm passer, he needs to throw more to get in a groove...

[Prowler]

Not good enough. This is accuracy.

[Raiderz4Life]

Originally Posted by Prowler

Not good enough. This is accuracy.

PPpfffttt that's chump change



THAT's how you do it.

[Ness]

Originally Posted by Denver Bronco27

We can argue why people fail in the NFL... but being able to throw a ball to point b is a skill that i dont think you lose, what changes is reading defenses and the speed of the game... but Tebow can throw the ball, he just needs to develop.

Tebow first needs to acquire the trait to be able to throw an accurate ball before he loses it.

Originally Posted by Denver Bronco27

I will give you sometime... but he also right after will throw a 30 yard dart.... He comes of as someone that is a rhythm passer, he needs to throw more to get in a groove...

That sounds like a nice way of saying he's inconsistent.

[Denver Bronco56]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAATerH70Dg


against NFL competition, when he is able to throw he can put the ball where he wants...

[Denver Bronco56]

Originally Posted by Ness

"You either have accuracy or you don't" - Steve Young.

ok... whats your point? im not saying he is going to be a 70% passer, he can definently be a mid to upper 50% passer combined with his running ability will be dangerous